People v. Carruthers
301 Mich. App. 590
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Williamstown Township voters approved creating a special assessment district for police protection on Nov 2, 2010.
- Township board adopted a resolution setting assessments: $150 residential, $250 commercial, $0 vacant.
- Petitioner was billed $150 (residential) and $250 (commercial) and appealed to the MTT Small Claims Division, arguing assessments must be ad valorem based on taxable value.
- The hearing referee sustained the township; on exceptions the MTT reversed, holding MCL 41.801(4) requires assessments to be calculated on taxable value.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered whether MCL 41.801 permits uniform-fee assessments or requires ad valorem assessments tied to taxable value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 41.801(4) requires special assessments for police protection to be calculated on taxable value (ad valorem) rather than permitting uniform fees | Petitioner: statute requires spreading the levy on the taxable value, so assessments must be ad valorem (taxable-value–based), not uniform per-parcel fees | Township: statute requires spreading the levy on taxable value but does not mandate the assessment be calculated based on taxable value; uniform fees may be converted to a millage spread on taxable value for collection | Court: statute permits uniform-fee assessments so long as amounts are spread on taxable value for collection; doesn’t require calculation to be ad valorem |
| Whether a uniform fee violates the requirement that assessments be "according to benefits received" | Petitioner: uniform fees ignore differences in property value and thus may not reflect benefits received | Township: if the board determines benefits are equal, equal assessments are consistent with "according to benefits received"; uniform fee permissible when benefits are equal | Court: If properties benefit equally, equal (uniform) assessments satisfy the statutory requirement that assessments be according to benefits received |
Key Cases Cited
- Kadzban v. City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495 (special assessments presumed valid; invalid when disproportional to benefits)
- Dixon Rd Group v. City of Novi, 426 Mich 390 (special assessment invalid if amount not proportionate to benefit)
- Kmart Mich Prop Servs, LLC v. Dep’t of Treasury, 283 Mich App 647 (standard of review for MTT decisions)
- Mich Ed Ass’n v. Secretary of State, 489 Mich 194 (principles of statutory interpretation; legislative intent controls)
- Niles Twp v. Berrien Co Bd of Comm’rs, 261 Mich App 308 (judicial construction only if statutory ambiguity)
- Mich Props, LLC v. Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518 (context on Proposal A and taxable value)
- St Joseph Twp v. Municipal Fin Comm, 351 Mich 524 (historical treatment of special assessments vs. taxes)